Hypocritical UN council sends envoy on Kafka-esque Canadian visit
By John Ivison  
May 16, 2012 
National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/john-ivison-hypocritical-un-council-sends-envoy-on-kafka-esque-canadian-visit/
Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, came to Canada at the behest of the various despots and potentates who make up the UN Human Rights Council, in order to point out what he called “unacceptable” rates of food insecurity in this country.
His visit was justified by three false premises. One, that “malnutrition” in Canada is getting worse. In fact, the prevalence of undernourishment has been constant at 5% since 1992, according to …erm, the United Nations.
Statistics Canada says the number of households in Canada experiencing food insecurity has fallen to 7.7% in 2008 from 9.2% in 2004, when the question was first asked.
The second misconception is that the poor are getting poorer. While it’s true that the bottom 20% of Canadian society are worse off in relative terms, a recent Conference Board study suggested that they are marginally better off than they were 35 years ago.
Mr. De Schutter also left the mistaken impression that there is a right to food in Canada. It’s true that Canada ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the General Assembly in 1948 (largely the creation of Canadian John Humphrey). Article 25 states that everyone has the right to standard of living “adequate for health and well-being … including food, clothing, housing and medical care.” But this is not part of binding international law. More importantly, there is nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that grants Canadians the right to food.
Freedom of conscience, religion and peaceful assembly are protected under the Charter, as are democratic, mobility and equality rights. But social policy is exactly that – the policy of the elected government of the day – not a constitutional right.
When it comes to policy, it’s clear Mr. De Schutter should leave it to the politicians, who at least derive their power from the people, rather than an anti-democratic, bureaucratic structure. He diagnosed the problem incorrectly and applied the wrong remedy.
In the same breath, he talked about the large numbers using food banks and the high levels of obesity in Canada, two distinct problems.
His solution is to increase social assistance and minimum wage in line with the cost of living. Taxes would be imposed on fatty foods and soft drinks; land zone policy would be amended to bring fresh food outlets to “food deserts”; food subsidization programs for remote regions should be enriched, as should support for First Nations trying to access “traditional foods.”
A national food strategy should be introduced, he said, and jurisdictional competencies “shifted” to force the federal government to sign up to binding targets. “Canada has redistributed to the rich. Maybe it’s now time for Canada to redistribute to the poor,” he said.
When asked whether all this didn’t smack a little of discredited bureaucratic socialist welfare systems that are currently crumbling all over Europe, he replied that it is the countries with generous social welfare programs that have proven most robust.
When Canada’s own fiscal constraints were raised, he said “the deficit is a pretext used for limiting social benefits.”
Mr. De Schutter pointed out that the Conservative 2011 election platform also called for a National Farm and Food Strategy. That it did. But the Tory goal is to expand international markets for Canada’s agriculture sector. The Special Rapporteur recommends a shift from export markets to a more bucolic and heavily subsidized domestic existence.
His pastoral vision was welcomed by the NDP, Liberals and groups like Food Secure Canada, who advocate more support for small farmers, small-scale processors and supply management, as well as prohibition of land sales to foreigners and legislation to ensure that large retailers must source 10% of their food from local sources.
‘Perhaps we should rethink the $5.2-billion we send overseas to the tired, hungry, huddled masses in less fortunate countries’
Needless to say, the Harper government was none too thrilled at being lectured by one of their least favourite organizations. Jason Kenney, the Immigration Minister, called Mr. De Schutter’s visit “completely ridiculous” and said he should focus on countries with widespread hunger issues. “It’s not an intelligent use of resources,” he said.
The entire visit was Kafka-esque. If things are that bad, perhaps we should rethink the $5.2-billion we send overseas in development assistance to the tired, hungry, huddled masses in less fortunate countries.
No doubt more could be done at home by federal and provincial governments.
Ottawa’s own statistics indicate Canada’s dietary intake is an issue. Three out of four households in Newfoundland and Labrador eat less than five fruit and vegetables a day; nearly 3% of homes have reduced their food intake because of cost; more than half of Canadians are “inactive”; 60% are overweight or obese.
But there are a range of problems here that demand a multitude of policy responses. One issue is low income; another is poor dietary choice. Giving people more money without improving eating habits would surely make the situation worse.
The Book of Deuteronomy noted the poor will always be with us. That said, they would be fewer in number if more countries adopted Canada’s commitment to trade, open markets and democracy, rather than indulge the collectivist fool’s paradise imported by the UN Special Rapporteur.
It is risible that Canada, ranked eighth on The Economist’s Democracy Index, should be lectured on human rights by a representative of the UN council whose current membership includes Russia (#117), China (#141), Congo (#145), Cuba (#126) and Saudi Arabia (#161).
The United Nations should respect and protect the sovereignty of its members, not trample all over it.